RE WASEEM

CACV 211/2025, [2025] HKCA 1126

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 211 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3738 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 14 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1238) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against  the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 4 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 May 2019, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] ‑ [11] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 April 2025, the applicant stated:

“I don’t agree with the decision. Want to appeal against it. The Judgement was not fair. My problem is true. Please reconsider my application.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 6 November 2025.  In those submissions, he reiterated the procedural history of his non‑refoulement claim and claimed that his life would be in danger upon refoulement as he would be harmed or killed by his enemies who had good connection with bad people.

5.  We heard the appeal on 9 December 2025.  An Urdu interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, he confirmed that he had nothing to add to his written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant in this appeal to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submissions did the applicant identify any error with specific particulars committed by the Judge.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail. We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal has no merit and is dismissed.